Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Griffiths and Tejan. 

To approve the record of the meeting held on 2 February 2016.

The record of the meeting held on 2 February 2016 was agreed and signed by

the Chairman as correct. 

There were none. 

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other interests

The Assistant Director, Transformation disclosed that she was a Director of Medway Norse and would not take part in the discussion about Medway Norse at agenda item no. 7.

This report sets out activities and progress on work areas within the Portfolio of the Leader of the Council and is provided in relation to the Leader of the Council being held to account.

Members received an overview of progress on the areas within the terms of

reference of this Committee covered by Councillor Alan Jarrett, Leader of the Council, i.e.

·         Strategic leadership of the Council

·         Communications and marketing

·         Finance

Councillor Jarret responded to Members’ questions and comments as follows:

·         Audit and Counter Fraud Shared Service -In response to a question about how the Leader felt the new shared service was operating and whether this would be a model for the future, the Leader replied that he considered the shared service was working well. However, in view of the significant financial pressures facing local government he did not feel simply sharing services across two councils would be enough and he was involved in exploring options for clusters of authorities in Kent to operate more closely together by integrating services.  Following on from that answer a Member asked about the Leader’s views on the balance between the advantages of additional savings due to joint working arrangements and the disadvantages of the consequent diminution in sovereignty for the Council. The Leader replied that the Council’s sovereignty was fundamental. He felt the Government’s preoccupation with elected mayors was a distraction and one that should not be imposed on Kent. There were merits in combined authorities provided the right deal was struck in terms of what additional powers were devolved.

·         Medway Norse - Responding to a question about progress to date with Medway Norse and the potential for further savings and income generation, the Leader commented that he felt Medway Norse had been a significant success since its inception in spite of some inevitable glitches. Whilst fully accepting people had a right to be paid at a fair rate he had some reservations about the impact of the living wage on the business and thought this policy had not been fully thought through by the Government. Medway Norse had been successful in generating revenues but there were challenges in terms of controlling costs and maintaining standards of service in the context of such significant labour pressures.

·         Business Rates - A Member asked if the Council had made any representations to the Government about how the changes in business rates would affect Medway. The Leader commented that this appeared to be a mechanism for the Government to be able to shift funding from central government to local government. He had asked the Secretary of State if transitional arrangements would be put in place but had not received a definite answer, possibly because this detail had not been considered yet by Government. Business rates were likely to be top sliced with extra responsibilities, as yet unknown, given to councils. The Leader was not in favour of responsibilities which were unaffordable being devolved, such as health services.

·         Thames Estuary Growth Commission -In response to whether the Chairman of the Commission, Lord Heseltine, would be visiting Medway, the Leader commented that Lord Heseltine would no doubt be visiting Kent. He was concerned at the naming of the new Commission and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 923.

This report sets out activities and progress on work areas within the Portfolio Holder for Resources, which fall within the remit of this Committee. This information is provided in relation to the Portfolio Holder for Resources being held to account.

Members received an overview of progress on the areas within the terms of

Reference of this Committee covered by Councillor Adrian Gulvin, Portfolio Holder for Resources, i.e.

·         Transformation

·         Council Plan

·         Performance and Service Improvement

·         Category Management / Procurement

·         Joint Ventures

·         Property

·         Administration Hubs

Councillor Gulvin apologised that the report did not include any details about joint ventures. Noting that Medway Norse was on the agenda for the next meeting, he stated he was willing to come to that meeting to respond to any questions from Members.

Councillor Gulvin responded to Members’ questions and comments as follows:

·         Eastgate House, Rochester - In response to a request for progress, Councillor Gulvin stated that, due to the specialist contractor going into voluntary administration, unfortunately work had been on hold. A new contractor had now been appointed and he hoped that work could re-commence soon.

·         Rochester Town Centre/Parking - A Member commented that more people were using the town centre car parks since the opening of the new railway station and as a consequence shoppers and visitors were finding it more difficult to find a parking space. Given the effects of this on local businesses a Member asked if the Council was planning to designate parking spaces for shoppers and visitors. Councillor Gulvin acknowledged there had been some difficulties for local traders. Parking in the town would need to be looked at once the new multi storey car park at the railway station opened.

·         Café at Rochester Adult Education Centre -Referring to the imminent closure of this café, a Member asked if the Council had considered the overarching impact of such a change for current users, particularly wheelchair users who found access better than at other cafes. Councillor Gulvin replied that not enough people had used the café for it to be viable and vending machines would be installed. There was still sufficient space for wheelchair users. The Council could potentially look to commission a new café facility nearby from Medway Norse as part of the Eastgate House development.

·         Love Medway App - A Member expressed regret that this app had been withdrawn and asked if a replacement was being considered. Councillor Gulvin replied that whilst the app itself was a digital device, information was processed within the Council on a largely paper-based system. He hoped to see it replaced with a more sophisticated system which took full potential of the benefits of working digitally from start to finish. Another Member commented that a replacement should have been ready for when the app was shut down so there was not an interim phase and hoped this was something the Council would learn from in future for its digital transformation agenda. Councillor Gulvin acknowledged the transition could have been handled better but the app had very few users and was uneconomic.

·         Former Civic Centre Site, Strood - In response to a question whether there were any plans to improve the appearance of this site, Councillor Gulvin agreed this ideally was needed but there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 924.

This report deals with a Member’s Item requested by Councillor Maple regarding changes to services carried out by Medway Norse.

Councillor Maple introduced this Member’s item on the issue of changes to services carried out by Medway Norse which he believed were a matter of public interest. He referred at the meeting to emails from service users about the negative impact on them as a result of the changes, particularly in relation to the closure of the café at the Rochester Adult Education Centre. He felt that overview and scrutiny committee Members needed to look at how they could scrutinise such proposals before decisions were made in order to avoid such a situation happening again.  He asked for the decision to close the café at the Rochester Adult Education Centre to be reconsidered and added that the Government had said that the National Living Wage should be affordable, commenting that, if this was so, then services should not be being cut.

In response, the Chief Legal Officer noted that the Medway Norse joint venture was a new way of working. The Council had set up a joint venture company as a commercial operation with a senior officer and Member appointed to the Board. The role of Members was not to run the business but rather to hold it to account and this happened via this Committee on a regular basis. The issue of pre decision scrutiny in respect of Medway Norse was a difficult one with no clear answer at present. In terms of the café, there had not been enough customers to make it viable. One alternative was to open a facility in a nearby building and investigations about this were at an early stage. Proposals would be brought forward if considered viable.

The Managing Director, Medway Norse stated that the Board had discussed with senior officers and Members how to accommodate budget pressures resulting from the national minimum wage without affecting front line services. Medway Norse did not have to pay rent and utilities etc. and the café was still not cost effective, although its situation on the first floor made access difficult. In response, a Member doubted whether the existence of the café had ever been sufficiently promoted.

According to the agreement with the Council, Catering services were provided on a wholly commercial basis. Whilst the café was busy at times the average spend was £1.71 per head and the vending machines would provide virtually everything currently supplied. In response to a question about whether consultation had taken place with services users (including the possibility of increasing prices to make the café viable), the Managing Director confirmed none had taken place. Neither had the possibility of increasing prices been looked at as Medway Norse had fixed pricing for menus at its catering outlets across Medway. In any event the shortfall was substantial. A Member felt that the public may well accept differential pricing and their views should be sought on this.

A Member queried why a new facility was being looked at if the present one was not considered viable. In response, the Committee was advised that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 925.

This report deals with the 6 monthly review of the Council’s Corporate Business Risk Register.

Discussion:

Members considered a report on the 6 monthly review of the Council’s Corporate Business Risk Register.

A Member suggested that Cabinet consider, as a new risk, the impact on the Council of future local government structures in the area. In response, the Chief Executive assured Members that this was something the Council was closely monitoring. There was a risk that if current discussions became prolonged a model may be imposed by the Government but he felt that any changes would not happen for some time and therefore it would be best to wait and see if this became a risk in the future.

In response to a question, officers advised that the Council’s approach to risk and the types of risk it measured was in line with other similar councils.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to:

a)     note the Extended Management Team’s recommendations on amendments to the Council’s Risk Register as detailed in section 3 of the report and Appendices A and B, and

b)     recommend the revised Risk Register for final approval by Cabinet on 10 May 2016.

This report asks Members to consider the final report of the in-depth review into the demand, supply and affordability of housing in Medway. The Committee is recommended to consider the findings and recommendations of the Task Group together with the comments from the Regeneration, Community and Culture O&S Committee on the report.

Discussion:

Members considered a paper regarding an in-depth review into the demand, supply and affordability of housing in Medway. The Committee was asked to consider the findings and recommendations of the Task Group together with the comments from the Regeneration, Community and Culture O&S Committee.

Members welcomed the report and the following issues were highlighted in the discussion:

·         It had not been part of the scope of the Task Group to consider the infrastructure needs arising from new homes

·         The need for more homes was clear

·         Private developers were driven by the market when releasing new homes for sale

·         There was a need to encourage development on land where permission had been granted

·         The potential of Recommendation 12 (exploring the options to generate extra finance to build housing)

·         The final report should be circulated to all Councillors, referred to the Health and Well Being Board and formally fed into the process for developing the new Local Plan

·         The concentration of housebuilding in the top six housebuilding firms and the problems caused by large numbers of people who had left the construction industry in recent years

·         The pressures facing developments in Medway as a result of the new development at Ebbsfleet Garden City, the new Thames Crossing and London Paramount

·         The issue of large scale immigration and the impact on the housing situation in Medway

Members suggested a re-ordering of the recommendations to give greater priority to certain issues and this was agreed.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to:

a)         note the comments from the Regeneration, Community and Culture

O&S Committee on the report from the Task Group;

b)         approve the report from the Task Group and refer it for consideration to Cabinet on 10 May and also, in respect of recommendations 3 and 9, the Director of Regeneration, Culture, Environment and Transformation;

c)         refer the report to the Health and Well Being Board and ask that it be circulated to all Councillors following the Cabinet meeting on 10 May;

d)         ask that the report be formally considered as part of the process for developing the new Local Plan;

e)         re-order the recommendations in the Task Group’s report as follows:

o   Move recommendation no 13 to be the first recommendation

o   Move recommendation no 8 to no 4

This report advises Members of proposed changes to the Overview and Scrutiny Rules following a review of the whole Constitution, commissioned by the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services

Discussion:

Members considered a report regarding proposed changes to the Overview and Scrutiny Rules following a review of the whole Constitution, commissioned by the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Services. The Committee was asked to consider the proposed revisions which would be recommended to full Council for approval at its meeting on 28 April 2016.

During the debate on this report the Committee welcomed the inclusion of a paragraph in the rules on the role of the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee in prioritising the topics for Scrutiny Task Group work. The roles of Overview and Scrutiny and the Regional Schools Commissioner  were also discussed in relation to school effectiveness and improvement with specific reference to the prospect of all schools becoming Academies.

In response to a question about why a Cabinet Member could sit on the Health and Wellbeing Board whilst a member of the Health and Adult Social Care O&S Committee could not, the Committee was advised that the latter Committee had a role in scrutinising the Board and therefore it would be inappropriate for a Member to scrutinise decisions they had been involved in making.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to:

a)        note the proposed revisions to Article 6 and the Chapter on Overview and Scrutiny Rules attached at Appendix A and  forward these to full Council on 28 April for approval with other revisions to the Constitution.

b)        note that proposed changes to the Terms of Reference of the Joint Kent and Medway Health Overview and Scrutiny will be subject to approval by Kent County Council (KCC) as well and that Full Council will be asked to authorise the Monitoring Officer to finalise the wording in consultation with KCC and the Chairman and Opposition Spokespersons of the Council’s Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

This report summarises the performance of the Council’s Key Measures of

Success for Quarter 3 2015/16 as set out in the Council Plan 2015/16.

Discussion:

Members considered a report which summarised the performance of the Council’s Key Measures of Success for Quarter 3 2015/16 as set out in the Council Plan 2015/16.

Referring to waste services, a Member asked what was being done to ensure that some of the difficulties with waste collection experienced over the Christmas period were not repeated. The Director advised that lessons had been learned and changes to collection dates would be better communicated in future. The Committee was advised the issues experienced would be taken on board when planning for the future.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to:

a)        note the Q3 2015/16 performance against the Key Measures of Success used to monitor progress against the Council Plan 2015/16, and;

b)        endorse the recommendation from the Regeneration, Community and Culture O&S Committee that Cabinet should reconsider Target NI 154 (Net Additional Homes Provided) for 2017/18.

This report presents the capital monitoring for the third quarter of the financial year, including out-turn forecasts and reference to any new schemes for approval. 

Discussion:

Members considered a report which presented the capital monitoring for the third quarter of the financial year, including out-turn forecasts and reference to any new schemes for approval.

A Member referred to the Growing Places Fund and asked if the Council was confident repayments would be made on time. The Chief Executive advised that the Council was clear about repayments and this was factored into the Council’s planning.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to:

a)     note the decisions of Cabinet to approve the budget virement proposal in paragraph 4.1.1 of the report and note the three new additions to the programme in paragraphs 4.1.2, 4.1.3 and 4.1.4, which are covered under the Chief Finance Officer’s delegated authority on capital spending, and;

b)    note the forecast outturn position and new additions to the

programme following round 3 of the quarterly capital monitoring report for 2015/16.

This report details the revenue budget monitoring forecasts at Round 3 considering expenditure as at the end of December 2015.

Discussion:

Members considered a report which detailed the revenue budget monitoring forecasts at Round 3 considering expenditure as at the end of December 2015.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to note the forecast outturn position and proposed management actions following round 3 of the revenue budget monitoring for 2015/16.

This report advises Members of the current work programme and allows them to adjust it in the light of latest priorities, issues and circumstances.

Discussion:

Members considered a report advising the Committee of the current work

programme.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to note the work programme (set out in appendix 1 to the report) and also the work programmes of all overview and scrutiny committees (set out in appendix 2 to the report).